Replies

Buchanan may be wrong about Iraq and his ideas about neocon/Israeli alliances. He may be wrong about trade. He is definitely wrong for speaking up Ralph Nader.

But he is right about the social issues, especially immigration. My guess is that one of Buchanan's points is that the ruling GOP has proven less conservative in practice than in what they promised.

The GOP has abandoned any pretense of representing the views of their own base (and the majority of Americans as it turns out) on immigration. Most Americans want less legal immigration; Bush proposes increasing legal immigration. Most oppose rewards for illegal aliens like amnesty, drivers' licenses, and in-state tuition; Bush supports amnesty and the GOP refused to even discourage the granting of licenses to illegals in their platform. They refuse to give political expression to the conservative, majority views on immigration and will eventually pay the price when it dooms them demographically.

Bush has abandoned the base (and again--the majority of Americans) in his support of racial preferences. Yeah, he is against 'quotas', but so what? Everyone claims to be against quotas. The question is of preferences, and Bush said a few weeks ago that he supports using race as a factor if other measures fail to 'achieve diversity.' In other words, he backs the absurd, leftwing notion that achieving diversity is a compelling state interest, so much so that it justifies discrimination against whites.

Bush has been good on abortion. He signed the partial birth abortion ban. He reinstated the gag rule.

So far Bush has been good on gay marriage, but the question is how hard he will fight when the Sup Court imposes gay marriage/civil unions on the nation in a possible second term.

But what is so frustrating about GOP timidness and even betrayal on these social issues is that the conservative view is the mainstream, majority view of Americans. It could yield electoral gains if they actually embraced conservatism on these.

As to the Senate: There is no conservative majority. Even if the 51 GOP senators were conservative (plus Zell Miller), that is undone by the rules of the Senate that allow a minority of 41 to kill votes. And who knows what will happen in Nov. Of the 5 open seats in the South that the GOP should win -- NC, SC, Ga, Fl, La -- they may only win SC and Ga. A sure hold in Oklahoma has become less sure this week. They will lose Illinois, and they may lose states they should hold in Colorado and Alaska.

And remember, they must at least break even and keep 51 seats so as to remove the temptation for Sen Chafee of RI to pull a Jeffords.

Yes, I know I've left out the race in South Dakota. Recent polls are encouraging, but Thune must beat the insufferable Daschle by a large enough margin so as to prevent the possibilty of late-arriving Indian Reservation votes from robbing him once again.

The House: Let's hope that the Texas redistricting delivers the additional 5-7 seats as has been advertised.

But anyway, if Bush wins, and I hope he does considering who his opponent is, then he can go a long ways to make up for some of his liberalism if he makes sure to put Scalia/Thomas type conservatives on the Sup Court. It is unlikely that O'Connor, Rehnquist, Stevens, and Ginsburg can all go another 4 yrs. Bush must nominate a conservative, then fight for him or her until they get an up or down vote from the full Senate. If the nominee bows out, then Bush must pick another equally conservative judge to take his place.